[Mesa-dev] mesa: don't install GLX files if GLX is not built
akihiko.odaki.4i at stu.hosei.ac.jp
Thu Jul 7 14:14:50 UTC 2016
On 2016-07-07 19:11, Emil Velikov wrote:
> [Adding back mesa-dev]
Sorry, I mistakenly clicked "Reply" instead of "Reply All".
> Hi Akihiko Odaki
> Before anything, let me say a couple of things about DRI.
> The DRI interface is an abstraction layer where you have winsys
> (GLX/EGL/other) agnostic DRI module and different DRI loaders, each
> implementing different winsys' API. Thus DRI modules do/should not
> have any GLX/EGL/other dependencies.
> As the location suggests, the file is not meant for developers using
> GL/GLX/..., but it's an internal interface. This way loaders/modules
> living outside of the mesa tree can reuse it. One such example is the
> loader is xserver.
That's what I wanted to know. Thank you for answering.
> On 7 July 2016 at 00:38, Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki.4i at stu.hosei.ac.jp> wrote:
>> I forgot to note that other GL header files are included by the internal DRI
> The dri_interface.h file includes only drm.h afaict, due to historical
> reasons. For ease of use (development) the DRI modules can reuse
> numerical values from GL/GLES.
They seems. They include GL/gl.h, which provide those types.
>> But they are not necessary when developing softwares and some of them
>> don't work as expected if the installation lacks GLX.
> Yes, as mentioned above - DRI is internal and not something meant for
> GL/GLES/EGL/... developers.
>>> I assumed the header files in GL/internal are not supposed to be
>>> included by users directly, but they can be included by other public
>>> header files. If so, GL/internal/dri_interface.h is not necessary to be
>>> installed since it is not included by such headers.
>>> But, after recieving your email I investigated again to find that
>>> GL/internal/dri_interface.h is not included even if GLX is enabled. Now
>>> I'm not sure what is the expected usage of GL/internal/dri_interface.h.
>>> Should it be installed anyway?
> Yes it should. Unfortunately one cannot know whether the
> header/interface will be used, during mesa build/install stage.
> If you know it's not needed, feel free to nuke it.
I see. Now I also think the hunk to patch
src/mesa/drivers/dri/Makefile.am should be removed.
Sorry for bothering and thank you for answering my questions.
More information about the mesa-dev